Legal Opinion

Brizendine v. Parker

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided March 25, 2016No. 12-6564PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner Michael Brizendine seeks an evidentiary hearing to prove that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective. Having procedurally defaulted this claim for purposes of his habeas corpu's petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Brizendine must establish that his post-conviction counsel was ineffective and any underlying ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim is substantial, meaning it has at least “some merit.” We agree with Brizendine that there is some merit to his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and argue that the…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Miller-El v. CockrellSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  3. Harrington v. RichterSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  4. Coleman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. Wiggins v. Smith, WardenSupreme Court of the United States · 2003

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Ford v. CheeksDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2025
  2. Stacy v. Commonwealth of KentuckyDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API